I wrote a bit for you at Global Comment, on HR3, HR358, and how they represent a staggering new level of violence against women and trans people. Passed into law, backed by certain Democrats who are so comfortable with exploiting their base that they’re fine with killing some of them (dudes, we are not going to show up at the polls if we’re dead. And the live ones aren’t going to vote for you. Aside from some truly Nixonian maneuvers, I don’t see this as doing anything but permanently ending your career, and ending it in public disgrace). For example:
I admit it: I probably wouldn’t have protested HR3, had it not included the rape clause. That clause rewrote the standard exemption which allows federal funding for pregnancies resulting “from rape or incest.” The new clause was a complicated, deceptive barbed-wire fence of a sentence, only allowing for federal funding exemptions when pregnancy resulted from “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest.” Which eliminates coverage for the survivors who are most often denied legitimacy by society: People raped while drugged or intoxicated, people raped while unconscious, statutory rape survivors. That made me very angry. It made a lot of other people angry too. I worked with other feminists to fight it, and we won.
But, by the time that happened, I had been educated by several feminists who’d spent a major portion of their lives protesting and organizing for the right to abortion, and was aware that striking the bad exemption language wasn’t actually a win. Not for survivors, not for anyone else. In fact, the process around this bill is a bait-and-switch. We protested one violent outrage, but the rest of the bill represented several different forms of violent outrage, and HR358 was more violent still.
Click through to read! And to think about how we can stop this. We can’t sacrifice momentum. And we can’t accept this. This isn’t even a political thing any more: This is people being straight-up, openly killed. In the name of “protecting life.”